Dear Committee Member,

Planning Application Stoke Farm Grindleford

This item was discussed at July’s planning committee meeting and unanimously recommended for approval, contrary to the recommendation of the Authority’s planning officer.

The matter has been referred to the main authority meeting on the 5th October and ahead of this, we have received another report, prepared by the planning officer, questioning the “legitimacy” of the planning committee decision.

We felt that we needed to respond to the officer’s report ahead of Friday’s meeting as time will be limited on the day and not sufficient to address all the points made.

We would be very grateful if you would have a look at the enclosed document and take it into consideration in your deliberations.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

Paul and Louise Hughes Stoke Farm Grindleford

Application for change of use of barn to self catering Tourist accommodation

In July 2012 the committee members voted unanimously (with one abstention) to approve the above application.

As this was considered an approval against policy it was referred to a full authority meeting.

The officer’s report regarding this decision states that this decision had no validity in planning terms for the following reasons:

1. It was against policy RT2
2. It would lead to the retention of a non vernacular building
3. It would lead to more planning applications for similar buildings around the park

Whilst this application may be against policy, to say that it has no validity in planning terms is incorrect for the following reasons:

Policy

Policy RT2 states that tourist accommodation can only be in buildings of historical or vernacular merit.

As these buildings are few and far between the result is that existing housing stock is used for tourist accommodation, causing a shortage of housing supply and an increase in house prices.

This application meets the statutory purposes of the National Parks both in terms of enhancement and promoting opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding.

It accords with policy E2 which states that businesses on farmsteads should be located in traditional buildings but where no suitable building exists the reuse of a modern building may be acceptable.

The officers have stated that they have no objection to tourist accommodation in the location and have given no clear reason why tourist accommodation is treated differently to other sectors of the economy despite it being the second largest contributor to the economy of the area.

The application also accords with GSP3 which states opportunities will be taken to enhance the park by the treatment or removal of undesirable buildings.

One policy should not be applied in isolation and by doing so to the officers are not achieving the main planning objectives of the core policy.

The Building

The building itself was built 41 years ago at a cost of £12 000 (the equivalent of £160 000 today). The statement that it is similar to the vast majority of farm buildings is both untrue and misleading. The vast majority of farm buildings are steel frame with metal sheeting or wood cladding and sometimes precast concrete panels. They can be dismantled in the same way they were put up; indeed many are when they are moved/sold.

This building cannot, it is a substantial reinforced concrete structure with permanent walls and the only way to remove it is to demolish it. It cannot be dismantled. The rear wall of the building also supports the road. This was discussed by officers when it was built in 1971 and can be seen in the planning file. Its demolition would risk the collapse of the road above.

In 2002 the cost of demolition was quoted as £15000. This would be considerably more today and in reality this is not going to happen.

Stating that this application will result in the retention of a non vernacular building is a non point. This building exists it is not going to disappear whether this application is granted or not.

Location

The building is not in open countryside and nor is it in an isolated location. It is next to the house, across the road from 7 other houses and as already stated built into the side of one of the busiest roads in the Peak District.

Precedent

As shown above there are not many buildings the same as this in the Peak District either in structure or location and certainly not both.

Notwithstanding this fact:

There is no such thing as precedent

We are continually told by the Authority’s officers that there is no such thing as precedent. Hence this application should be judged on its own merits without regard to what someone may or may not apply for in the future.

The authority’s own website points this out as a guiding principle for those who wish to make comment on applications.

Conclusion

This application represents significant planning gain

It complies with two of the main objectives of The National Parks authority, with the economic policy and the general spatial policy.

It accords with the objective of the core strategy which states that the Authority will help farmers look after the landscape and recognise the contribution or recreation and tourism to the local economy.

It significantly enhances an unattractive building and the surrounding landscape. It encourages access to the Park

It will provide 2 full time jobs and inject an estimated £50000 per annum into the economy through tourist attractions, shops, restaurants, outdoor instruction, laundry and ongoing maintenance.

Most importantly it will inject income into the farm allowing us to buy much needed equipment, spend more time on the farming enterprise and ensure its survival.

The planning officers' report of 27 September 2012 does not introduce any new arguments but merely repeats the policies that were discussed at length during the planning committee meeting on 13 July 2012.

As demonstrated the decision for approval has validity both in planning terms and in common sense terms and should stand. Doing nothing benefits no one.